• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

WTF...Our tanks suck?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Pocatello
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Conventional RPGs will do dick to an Abrams. The reactive armor will keep them from penetrating.
What's being used is likely this one missile the Russians developed for this exact purpose during the cold war. I can't recall what they're called. They work by being consisting of two specially shaped charges. The first blows through the reactive armor, the second blows through the lighter stuff below and then into the inside, likely taking out the tank. They look very similar to conventional RPGs.
Click to expand...
The M1A1 doesn't have any reactive armor. Supposedly the designers thought that the Abrams tanks don't need it. Most modern main battle tanks don't have reactive armor, just the older tanks such as the M-60 and the T-72.
Click to expand...
Um... no. Deinfelty not.

The M-60s with reactive armor were mostly retrofitted Isreali tanks, and the T-72s that had it were essentially early generation T-80s. "Some modern tanks such as the T-72 and the M60 use a one piece cast steel turret and hull which are produced by giant molds, others use welded together plates."

Link to see differences.

I will grant you that you're technically right on the M1's not having reactive, though what they have is damned close. Chobham armor is a composite design that disperses the energy and heat of an explosive hit in the same way that reactive armor does. But, not having an explosive element to it, it can't technically be called reactive.

In the end, you're playing with semantics. M60's and T-72's were never designed to hold reactive armor, but they have been fitted with mounting points for it. M1's typically don't have it, but what it does have does the same job.

Way more in depth speculation than I want to bother with here.

BTW, any chance for a link for where you saw a Bradley with the stuff installed? I know they have the mounting points all over, but never with the armor actually on there
 
Originally posted by: Pocatello
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Conventional RPGs will do dick to an Abrams. The reactive armor will keep them from penetrating.
What's being used is likely this one missile the Russians developed for this exact purpose during the cold war. I can't recall what they're called. They work by being consisting of two specially shaped charges. The first blows through the reactive armor, the second blows through the lighter stuff below and then into the inside, likely taking out the tank. They look very similar to conventional RPGs.
Click to expand...

The M1A1 doesn't have any reactive armor. Supposedly the designers thought that the Abrams tanks don't need it. Most modern main battle tanks don't have reactive armor, just the older tanks such as the M-60 and the T-72 and armored fighting vehicles such as the Bradleys.
Click to expand...

One cannot ever expect a particular tank or armored vehicle or any kind of armor to be indestructible, no matter how much it costs. It's an arms race that has existed throughout history; someone builds some bit of armor, and others do their damnedest to figure out how to penetrate it.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Pocatello
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Conventional RPGs will do dick to an Abrams. The reactive armor will keep them from penetrating.
What's being used is likely this one missile the Russians developed for this exact purpose during the cold war. I can't recall what they're called. They work by being consisting of two specially shaped charges. The first blows through the reactive armor, the second blows through the lighter stuff below and then into the inside, likely taking out the tank. They look very similar to conventional RPGs.
Click to expand...

The M1A1 doesn't have any reactive armor. Supposedly the designers thought that the Abrams tanks don't need it. Most modern main battle tanks don't have reactive armor, just the older tanks such as the M-60 and the T-72 and armored fighting vehicles such as the Bradleys.
Click to expand...

One cannot ever expect a particular tank or armored vehicle or any kind of armor to be indestructible, no matter how much it costs. It's an arms race that has existed throughout history; someone builds some bit of armor, and others do their damnedest to figure out how to penetrate it.
Click to expand...

Quite true.
 
thats probably rare, stories of abrams tanks taking out scads of iraqi tanks with ease. taking hits to boot. that tank get hit from behind? any vid links? i just know iraqi's tanks definetly sucked, abrams troop carriers took em out. much unlike in desert combat where ur totally hosed against a iraqi tank😉
 
tom hanks once stopped a tank with his 9mm. it was on a bridge, so he shot it and the gun called in planes to blow it up
 
Originally posted by: Heisenberg
Originally posted by: AvesPKS
When the US went into space, we spent millions of dollars to develop a pen that would write in space.

The Russians just used a pencil.
Click to expand...
Nope
Click to expand...

Curses! Foiled again! 😛

But...but...it's anecdotal, and it worked to further my argument...can't we just pretend like it happened? Please? 😛
 
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Did you know what most of the tanks lost in desert storm were due to friendly fire?
Click to expand...

ARTILERY: ROGER CHARLIE, 20o 30o 40o NW
TANK COMMANDER: WAITING TO CONFIRM AQUISITON
ARTILERY: THAT IS A GO; FIRE!
TANK COMMANDER: WHAT THE....
ARTILLERY: MY BAD!
ARTILLERY: Hello?
Click to expand...

:evil:
 
Originally posted by: radioactiveballpoint
They have some new lightly armored APC/tank that is going to be used to replace the M1 tank in a lot of situations... i forget what it is called though. Could they maybe they are moving towards lighter armor because it is pointless to try to build a behemoth to withstand these RPGS?
Click to expand...

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/

too big and heavy with additional armor kit against rpg for air transport, and welll, worse then a tank with or without probably. better then a humvee though. very wide .so bad on narrow roads.
faster and much quieter then a tank, so u can run away🙂
 
I don't know why but this whole new idea of a rapid deployment force kinda is weird to me. Guess it was just to many Cold War drills.
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
tom hanks once stopped a tank with his 9mm. it was on a bridge, so he shot it and the gun called in planes to blow it up
Click to expand...

That was a .45...get your facts straight! I mean c'mon...a 9mm taking out a tank...that would be absurd! 😉
 
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Conventional RPGs will do dick to an Abrams. The reactive armor will keep them from penetrating.
What's being used is likely this one missile the Russians developed for this exact purpose during the cold war. I can't recall what they're called. They work by being consisting of two specially shaped charges. The first blows through the reactive armor, the second blows through the lighter stuff below and then into the inside, likely taking out the tank. They look very similar to conventional RPGs.

Edit: etech got the name.
Click to expand...

Abrams do not have reactive armor. Russian T-90's have reactive armor. Abrams have Chobham armor, which is a ceramic-metal composite.

And the lightly-armed replacement for the Abrams is called the Stryker. It's a piece of sh!t
 
My MOS was 19K20 when I was in the army..

I was on M1A1 for 2 years..
Horus is correct, M1A1 does not have reactive armor.
Weak spot for all tanks are the tracks, top, and rear side of the tank.
The armor on the front, and side of the turret has a 1/2 inch depleted Uraniam (spelling) steel and about 16 inches of regular armor.

RPG to the track will make the tank immobile, RPG to the rear will kill an engine..
 
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: Descartes
It takes at least four shots to the rear of an M1A1 in BF1942 Desert Combat.
Click to expand...

Of course we all know how historically accurate video games are 😛

/sarcasm meter not broken 😉
Click to expand...

you mean I can't throw a sonic boom or a fireball? :Q
 
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Conventional RPGs will do dick to an Abrams. The reactive armor will keep them from penetrating.
Click to expand...

Reactive armor hasn't been used in well over a decade.

 
Originally posted by: Rudee
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Conventional RPGs will do dick to an Abrams. The reactive armor will keep them from penetrating.
Click to expand...

Reactive armor hasn't been used in well over a decade.
Click to expand...

Maybe not by the US, but I've seen new Chinese and Russian tanks with it.
 
I saw a short vid clip of this at lunch. It was definitely an abrams, looks like it either took a hit at the back of the turret or either on top of the engine or directly from behind. It was on fire and it looked like the tank commander was crawling out with a wounded arm. I would speculate that the loader was also injured since they said 2 people were hurt.

19D10 4 years active
<-----
 
Originally posted by: DeathByAnts
Regarding the recent news articles about our tanks being taken out of action. What the hell is the point of using tanks in that situation when I couple of Iraquis with a RPG can take the multi-million dollar unit out with one hit? The tank listed in the above was an M1 Abrams. Do we even have anything that can withstand a low tech RPG?


Note that I didn't post this in P&N as I am talking about the technological aspect of things, not the political.
Click to expand...
It doesn't suck when you aren't hit, but it always suck when you are down. The armors & technology give the US a very big advantage; however the arrogant of the administration is what getting the little guys kill.

I'm surprised that some people say war is fair or unfair. Everyone fight for their survival in a war by any mean is the uttermost important. Strange that the US doesn't mention that they are the cowards that hide behind armor tanks, satellites & planes.

"Marine: Iraqi tactics 'cowardly'

Some 280 Iraqis have died in the fighting in the city, Fallujah city hospital director Rafie al-Issawi told the AP. He said 180 more have been killed elsewhere in the country, including Ramadi.

U.S. troops place the blame for many of the civilian deaths on the insurgents.

"We're facing an enemy that's unafraid to fight from behind women and children, from occupied apartment buildings, from protected sites,"a Marine officer said in Fallujah during a television report.

"To characterize their resistance as anything but kind of cowardly would be to give them more credit than they deserve," he said."
 
Originally posted by: OffTopic
Originally posted by: DeathByAnts
Regarding the recent news articles about our tanks being taken out of action. What the hell is the point of using tanks in that situation when I couple of Iraquis with a RPG can take the multi-million dollar unit out with one hit? The tank listed in the above was an M1 Abrams. Do we even have anything that can withstand a low tech RPG?


Note that I didn't post this in P&N as I am talking about the technological aspect of things, not the political.
Click to expand...
It doesn't suck when you aren't hit, but it always suck when you are down. The armors & technology give the US a very big advantage; however the arrogant of the administration is what getting the little guys kill.

I'm surprised that some people say war is fair or unfair. Everyone fight for their survival in a war by any mean is the uttermost important. Strange that the US doesn't mention that they are the cowards that hide behind armor tanks, satellites & planes.

"Marine: Iraqi tactics 'cowardly'

Some 280 Iraqis have died in the fighting in the city, Fallujah city hospital director Rafie al-Issawi told the AP. He said 180 more have been killed elsewhere in the country, including Ramadi.

U.S. troops place the blame for many of the civilian deaths on the insurgents.

"We're facing an enemy that's unafraid to fight from behind women and children, from occupied apartment buildings, from protected sites,"a Marine officer said in Fallujah during a television report.

"To characterize their resistance as anything but kind of cowardly would be to give them more credit than they deserve," he said."
Click to expand...

So you're saying we should instead hide behind women and children like the Iraqis so we won't be cowardly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top